Forum | Dean's Page

Forget Politics: Environmental Scientists Need to Speak Up and Be Heard

by William H. Schlesinger

Much of the public thinks academic scientists are fuzzy-haired (or bald-headed) geeks, happy in window-less laboratories, discovering things that most people don't understand, and publishing their findings in deep prose that can't be read by anyone outside of the ivory tower. We may not understand their science but we expect their methods to be pure and honest. And, so long as these scientists work on questions such as the age of the universe, we do not expect their findings to affect the political process, at least anytime soon. But, for environmental scientists, daily reality is quite different. The subject usually is a problem-the health of the environment-for which the public and policy makers want a solution. The public expects the best opinions that science can offer on how to avoid direct risks to humans or to the natural ecosystems that sustain life on Earth. The debate about what to do-the costs and benefits of actions-is often acrimonious. How far should environmental scientists venture outside the laboratory to offer an opinion about what should be done about environmental problems?

For one, I am on record as an activist. When our research speaks to an issue, I believe that academics should make every effort to translate their findings, and their best interpretation of the state of the science, so that the public can understand it. We have every right to speak out against a toxic impact to our environment, just as we would expect a physician to speak against a carcinogenic substance that might contaminate our food. Indeed, when taxpayer money has supported our research investigations, one can argue that we have the responsibility to go public with our findings. Within the current political environment in the United States, during the past few months, I have been accused of being "partisan" when I have spoken out on global warming, air pollution, or logging in our national forests. Far from it! Academics are not responsible for the clear differences between the political parties in their support of environmental issues. It is these differences, rather than factual, public statements by environmental scientists, that have politicized the debate on environmental policy. So long as environmental scientists have no conflict of interest in the outcome of an issue, we should be vocal in what our research says about human environmental impacts. Subsequent debate about what to do may be political, but it should be informed by our science. And if we are asked what to do about a problem, we have a right to speak out without feeling that we have compromised the integrity of our science.

In my first year as dean of the Nicholas School, I added a section to the form on which faculty report their accomplishments each year. The form now asks them to list their efforts in public outreach, education, and media. I hope to see the entries in this section grow. We have information that the public needs to know, and we have the right and responsibility to convey it.

Schlesinger is dean of the Nicholas School and James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry